Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/66/2015

Sushil Agrawal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sree Plywood Farm - Opp.Party(s)

Sri P.K. Mishra

23 Jun 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 66/2015

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Sushil Agrawal,

S/O- Late Ramsaran Agrawal,

R/O-Balaji Colony, Khetrajpur,

Po/Ps-Khetrajpur, Dist-Sambalpur.                                        …..Complainant

 

Vrs.

1. Shree Plywood,

Farm Road, Po/Ps-Khetrajpur

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.

2. Alishan Veneer and Plywood Pvt. Ltd.
3.  

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-         Sri. P.K.Mishra, Advocate & associates
2. For the O.P. No.1                                     :-         Exparte
3. For the O.P. No.2                                    :-         Sri. S. Bhanja

 

DATE OF HEARING : 19.04.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT :23.06.2022

            Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT,

1. The Complainant purchased ply woods along with Hardware and kitchenware from the O.P. No.1 for an amount of Rs. 1,30,366/- on 03.02.2015 with an assurance of ten years guarantee against termite and borer attack. With the alluring assurance the Complainant purchased Alishan Vaneer and ply wood brand for his house against bill No. 342 dated 03.02.2015. The guarantee card was issued vide cash memo no. 0011999. The Complainant purchased other allied materials like saunmika, handles, fevicol etc. and also paid labour charges for selves, cup-boards and wall fittings for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

On 12.07.2015 the Complainant detected that ply woods have been infected by termites along with costly sarees and dresses costing around Rs. 20,000/- which were completely damaged. On 12.07.2015 the Complainant complaint before O.P. No.1, who advised to complain over telephone to one Saket Choudhury, whose name appear in website also. On 23.07.2015 over the complaint Mr. Saket Choudhury assured to look into the matter.

On 27.07.2015 one representative of O.P. No.2 came to see the damaged shelve/cup board, took photographs also. The representative assured that within guarantee period the matter shall be taken care of.

Thereafter, the Complainant when made repeated calls to O.P. No.2, he replied to replace the entire ply wood. The O.P. No.2 told that they cannot do anything for the damaged clothes, other materials and labour charges. Non fulfilling the guarantee condition amount to deficiency in service. The Complainant spent Rs. 28,728/- taking pest control measures from pest control (India) ltd.

The O.Ps on 25.08.2015 declined to compensate and ultimately the Complainant filed this Complaint.

2. The O.P. NO.1 has been set ex-parte. The O.P. No.2 in its version through Saket Choudhury submitted that the O.P. NO.2 is not liable to pay for any abnormal use of materials in close proximity of water and moisture conditions. The technical expert of the company reported that the Complainant has not taken any step to avoid water and for moisture situations, damaged the product of O.P. No.2, for which guarantee is not attracted. There is no any manufacturing defect in the product. The O.P.No.2 was ready to replace the damaged portion even though no defect on the product of O.P. No.2. The O.P.No.2 is not liable for the anti-termite treatment. The Complaint is devoid of any merit.
3. After perusal of the complaint, version of O.P. No.2 and documents filed by the Complainant the following issues are framed:
103606587.  

1. Whether any deficiency in service or manufacturing defects existed on the purchased product or service of the O.Ps?
2. What is the quantum of loss sustained by the Complainant?
3. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

ISSUE NO.1;- Whether any deficiency in service or manufacturing defects existed on the purchased product or service of the O.Ps?

                   It is admitted by both the contesting O.P. and Complainant that the Complainant purchased plywood of the O.P. No.2 company for an amount of Rs. 1,30,366/- on 03.02.2015 from the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 issued the letter of guarantee No. 001199dated 24.09.2015 against invoice No 342 dated 03.02.2015. The procedures are narrated in the letter of guarantee about collection of samples of damage portions by technical person of the company and receiving satisfactory proof of originality of Alishan make, the company assured to replace an equal quantity of materials for the portion actually damaged. No compensation will be provided against damaged materials, the infection made by termite and borer attacks or any manufacturing defects. The guarantee is valid from the day of sale.

                   The O.P. NO.2 in its version admitted that one technical person submitted a report to the O.P. No.2 but in this case the O.P. No.2 not filed the said report nor supplied a copy of the report to the Complainant. Another aspect is that the O.P. NO.2 agreed to replace the affected product supplied to the Complainant. This statement proves that the Complainant has used original ‘Alishan’ brand product and infection of termite and borer damaged the said materials. It is supported by Invoice No. P290/St/16/000736 dated 18.08.2015 of the pest control(India) Pvt.Ltd. within the period of guarantee as the product was damaged by termite and borer it proves the manufacturing defect of the product. Further the O.P. No.2 simply said about exposure of water and moisture mishandling of the product. Suppression of technical report not only proves the manufacturing defect but also deficiency in service.

                   Accordingly the issue is answered against the O.Ps.

ISSUE NO.2:- What is the quantum of loss sustained by the Complainant?

          The Complainant has submitted the retail invoice of  Rs. 1,30,366/- dated 03.02.2015 issued by O.P. No.1. Although the Complainant not submitted the detail bills of saunmika, handles, fevicol etc. for making of the shelves, cup boards and wall fitting without which there is no use of the plywood. Further labour charges are required for the making. Once the plywood is damaged then the entire ancillary products are of no use. Further a dis-satisfaction arises in the mind of the user.

          The Complainant has made an expenditure of Rs. 28,728/- to-wards pest control. The articles damaged as complaint by the Complainant is having no any documentary base.

          Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the Complainant.

ISSUE NO.3:- What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

          There was manufacturing defect in the product of the O.P. No.2 and the fact was suppressed by not submitting the technical report. Further during the period of guarantee the O.P. No.2 not replaced the defective materials. The Complainant is entitled for the relief as given under:   

          ORDER

          The Complaint is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to pay the following:

1. Cost of plywood                     Rs.1,30,366.00
2. Labour Charges                       Rs. 1,30,000.00
3. Anti-pest Control Expenses    Rs. 27,728.00
4. Compensation                         Rs. 50,000.00
5. Legal Expenses                        Rs. 10,000.00

Total           Rs. 3,48,094.00

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above amount will carry 4% interest w.e.f 03.02.2015. In case the O.Ps failed to pay the amount within one month of this order then the entire amount will carry 12% interest till realisation.

          Order pronounced       in open court on this 23^rd June 8, 2022               

                    Supply free copy to the parties.